Productive for what, exactly? There’s a lot of assumed context missing from the post, including your gender, and the gender you’re targeting. It’s also not completely clear what kind of relationship you want, but we’ll assume it’s serious and long-term.
First: you’re XY, looking for XX. In this case, @swarriner’s post is applicable to most of the distribution. But since you’re here, we’ll assume the girl you’re looking for is intellectually gifted, data oriented, and may or may not be slightly on the spectrum. Even in this case, pictures are still worth 1000 words, but a lengthy profile probably won’t hurt (it may not help that much, though.) If you’re going for someone in the bulk of the distribution, a long profile will most likely hurt, not help. In short, make sure you have good pictures, and don’t rely on your own judgement or that of biased parties to assess whether the pictures are good.
Second: You’re XY looking for XY. In this case a long profile is probably pretty useful, but your pictures still need to be good.
Third: NB for one, the other or both. In this case a long description is probably generally useful. Don’t know enough about this case.
Fourth: You’re XX looking for anything. A long profile isn’t necessary, just some pictures and a short signal that you’re smart and nerdy. The pictures don’t need to be that good.
edit: what went wrong here? why is this controversial? anyone can explain?
It’s not controversial. If it would be it would get both agreement and disagreement votes. It’s rather low quality. Part of what makes a LessWrong post high quality is epistemic legibility. That would mean that you not only give your opinions but explain the evidence you have for your opinions.
Apart of that the idea that XX looking for a long term relationship should orient themselves around what’s necessary instead of orienting themselves around increasing the likelihood of finding a partner that has the attributes the want seems flawed and like you haven’t spoken with XX who have trouble finding a desireable partner.
You know, one can find a desirable partner after having had trouble finding one. Just finding a parter is not very hard as XX. Please think more carefully about what has (and hasn’t) been said before strawmanning.
I assume that the kind of partners people are seeking are partners that are desirable for them. That assumption seems at least apply to most people with whom I have spoken about finding a partner.
But even if you have evidence from one step of “one person acquired one partner by doing XY” that’s not very robust for making general claims about which strategies on average provide returns.
Productive for what, exactly? There’s a lot of assumed context missing from the post, including your gender, and the gender you’re targeting. It’s also not completely clear what kind of relationship you want, but we’ll assume it’s serious and long-term.
First: you’re XY, looking for XX. In this case, @swarriner’s post is applicable to most of the distribution. But since you’re here, we’ll assume the girl you’re looking for is intellectually gifted, data oriented, and may or may not be slightly on the spectrum. Even in this case, pictures are still worth 1000 words, but a lengthy profile probably won’t hurt (it may not help that much, though.) If you’re going for someone in the bulk of the distribution, a long profile will most likely hurt, not help. In short, make sure you have good pictures, and don’t rely on your own judgement or that of biased parties to assess whether the pictures are good.
Second: You’re XY looking for XY. In this case a long profile is probably pretty useful, but your pictures still need to be good.
Third: NB for one, the other or both. In this case a long description is probably generally useful. Don’t know enough about this case.
Fourth: You’re XX looking for anything. A long profile isn’t necessary, just some pictures and a short signal that you’re smart and nerdy. The pictures don’t need to be that good.
edit: what went wrong here? why is this controversial? anyone can explain?
It’s not controversial. If it would be it would get both agreement and disagreement votes. It’s rather low quality. Part of what makes a LessWrong post high quality is epistemic legibility. That would mean that you not only give your opinions but explain the evidence you have for your opinions.
Apart of that the idea that XX looking for a long term relationship should orient themselves around what’s necessary instead of orienting themselves around increasing the likelihood of finding a partner that has the attributes the want seems flawed and like you haven’t spoken with XX who have trouble finding a desireable partner.
The post originally had several positive karma then got downvoted. The need for “epistemic legibility” is noted.
Haven’t spoken with? Who said I’m not in this category lol
If you had trouble finding a partner, having certainty that it’s just a matter of doing simple step A and B would not be warranted.
You know, one can find a desirable partner after having had trouble finding one. Just finding a parter is not very hard as XX. Please think more carefully about what has (and hasn’t) been said before strawmanning.
I assume that the kind of partners people are seeking are partners that are desirable for them. That assumption seems at least apply to most people with whom I have spoken about finding a partner.
But even if you have evidence from one step of “one person acquired one partner by doing XY” that’s not very robust for making general claims about which strategies on average provide returns.